fall 2020 newsletter issue no. 77 chair’s column · 2020. 12. 2. · fall 2020 newsletter issue...

____________________________________________________________________________________ Fall 2020 NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO. 77

CHAIR’S COLUMN

Dear Section Members:

As the challenging year of 2020 draws to a close, I want to thank all of the Board and Section members for their commitment to the Section in donating their valuable time to the business of the Section. In addition, I want to applaud the creativity and flexibility of the Board and Section members in adapting to the changed circumstances this year. Not only adapting to remote legal practice but adjusting the Section’s many offerings to accommodate restrictions on in-person gathering has been a unique challenge, but our members have met the challenge and overcome it.

First, commendation goes to the Planning Committee for the Federal Government Contracting Seminar (co-chairs Randy Wintory and Joe Guarino). The committee adjusted to the “2020 Normal” and moved to a virtual presentation for the Section’s 5th Annual Federal Government Contracting Seminar, which was conducted remotely on Wednesday, September 16, 2020. The seminar was an excellent presentation with great speakers and plenty of great information. Thank you to the speakers and to the Planning Committee for their excellent work.

Also pivoting to the new circumstances, commendation goes to the Fall Seminar Planning Committee and co-chairs Spencer Weigard and Jon Straw. The 41st Annual Construction and Public Contracts Law Seminar became the “Virtual Boar’s Head,” with the first day taking place on November 6, 2020. The day was packed with entertaining and informative presentations, including a fascinating “Sticks and Bricks” presentation on the 460 Connector Project. Thank you to the committee and the speakers for an excellent first day.

Please sign up for the second day of the “Virtual Boar’s Head” on December 4, 2020, which will feature an update on mechanic’s liens, the impacts of COVID-19 on construction, tips on presenting a complex construction case to a jury and, last but not least, the recent developments update with poetry and movie quotes included for free.

In addition to the seminar committees, I want to acknowledge the hard work of the other committees. First, thank you to the Handbook Committee and chairman Joshua Johnson. If you have not visited the website recently, the annual update of cases has been loaded to the site and is ready for review. A big thank you to chairman Chandra Lantz and the Publications Committee, who have compiled a great set of authors and articles to be included in our Section’s edition of the Virginia Lawyer, set for publication in early 2021. Thanks also goes to our Summer Program Committee, co-chaired by Tara

2

Chadbourn and Jonathan Wright, who are putting together a great program for what we hope will be an in-person Summer 2021 Annual Meeting.

Finally, a big thank you goes to our Section’s Newsletter Committee and the hard-working co-chairs Daniel Rounds and Jesse Gordon. If you have a decision that would be of interest, or would like to contribute an article to the Newsletter, please contact Dan or Jesse.

As a reminder, you can find a wealth of information on the VSB Construction Law Section website, including the updated Handbook: https://www.vsb.org/site/sections/construction. Thanks to the hard work of Daniel Rounds and Sarah Kathryn Stahling, the website is up to date with Section information, and our social media presence has expanded.

If you have any comments or suggestions or would like to volunteer for any of our committees, please contact me.

Scott W. Kowalski PETTY, LIVINGSTON, DAWSON & RICHARDS, P.C.

925 MAIN STREET, SUITE 300 Lynchburg, VA 24504

[email protected] ………………………………………………………………………………………

3

RECENT CASES

Note: The following decisions are available at http://www.vsb.org/site/sections/construction. Our Member Resources section is password protected. The username is constructionmember and the password is CL2020-21member.

A. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES White Oak Power Constructors v. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Americas Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00355-JAG (E.D. Va. June 22, 2020)

In 2013, Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Americas Inc. (“Mitsubishi”) entered into an

Equipment Purchase Agreement (“EPA”) with Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (“Old Dominion”) under which Mitsubishi would provide two gas turbines, generators and other components for the construction of a natural gas power plant in Maryland (“Project”). Old Dominion later assigned its rights to White Oak Power Constructors (“White Oak”), the engineer and contractor for the project. The EPA contained provisions that assessed liquidated damages against Mitsubishi under three circumstances: (1) delays in key document delivery; (2) delays in equipment delivery; and (3) delays to substantial completion of the Project.

The Project did indeed suffer various delays, at least some of which White Oaks attributed to Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi challenged the enforceability of the liquidated damages provision on the basis that the liquidated damages far exceeded the actual damages that White Oaks suffered. White Oaks moved for partial summary judgment arguing that Virginia law on the enforceability of liquidated damages provisions precludes consideration of actual damages measured after execution of the contract to determine whether the liquidated damages provision sets a sum that would be would be grossly in excess of actual damages (and therefore an unenforceable penalty).

In Applying Virginia state law, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, citing Taylor v. Sanders, 233 Va. 73, 75 (1987), noted that Virginia enforces liquidated damages provisions unless “the stipulated amount would be grossly in excess of actual damages.” The issue before the Eastern District, therefore, was whether in determining “actual damages”, it should apply a prospective approach, which would consider the “probable actual damages as contemplated by the parties at the time of contract formation,” or a retrospective approach “viewing the reasonableness of the provision in light of the damages sustained once the alleged breach occurred.” White Oak at 7. The Eastern District noted that although the Virginia Supreme Court had applied a retrospective approach three decades ago in 301 Dahlgreen Ltd. Partnership v. Board of Supervisors, 240 Va. 200 (1990), that it had since only applied a prospective approach. The Eastern District therefore concluded that the Virginia law requires courts to consider “the actual damages contemplated at the time of contract when determining the reasonableness of a liquidated damages provision.” White Oak at 7. This therefore requires a prospective analysis and precludes a retrospective analysis. As a result, Mitsubishi was precluded from challenging the liquidated damages provision based on actual damages suffered by White Oaks after contract formation, and the Eastern District granted White Oak’s motion for partial summary judgment.

4

B. SURETY / INDEMNIFICATION / BAD FAITH

Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. Ramsgate Corporation, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-567, 2020 (E.D. Va. Sept. 18, 2020)

Plaintiff Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (“F&D”) provided its principal, Ramsgate

Corporation, Inc. (“Ramsgate”) subdivision bonds for a project with the City of Suffolk (“City”). In order to obtain the subdivision bonds, Ramsgate, and S. Grey Folkes and Robert Kinser, as individual indemnitors (“Defendants”) signed an Agreement of Indemnity (“Agreement”) with F&D. The City made a demand against the subdivision bonds, which F&D ultimately paid on behalf of Ramsgate. F&D filed an indemnity suit against the Defendants to recover the amount F&D paid to the City to settle the claims by the City. F&D moved for summary judgment and Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment alleging that F&D acted in bad faith by settling the City’s claims.

The Eastern District granted F&D’s motion for summary judgment and denied Defendants’ cross-motion. F&D received claims against the bonds in October 2017, seeking the penal sum for both bonds, totaling $426,179.41. F&D advised Defendants of the claim and requested that they address and resolve the issues with the City. Defendants never posted any collateral as required by the Agreement, offered to defend the claims, or offered to provide any assistance with the claims. Instead, Defendants requested that F&D defend the claims by the City. The City provided F&D a report from an engineering firm, which estimated the cost of the repairs for two sections of the subdivision. F&D hired its own consultant to investigate the City’s claims. F&D relied on Defendants’ arguments that most of the claimed expenses were for standard maintenance, as opposed to true corrective work. The City made a final demand of $80,000 and F&D accepted the City’s reduced demand after conferring with its consultant. F&D provided the Defendants a final opportunity to resolve the dispute before issuing the settlement payment, but the Defendants did not resolve the claim. Rather, Defendants argued that the City’s claims were time barred and any payments issued would not be in good faith. F&D paid the City, then sought indemnity from the Defendants for its resolution of the City’s claims, which Defendants refused.

The Eastern District found that the plain language of the Agreement required the Defendants to indemnity F&D for the costs of settling the claims by the City. As to the Defendants’ cross-motion, the Court concluded that F&D did not act in bad faith. In suretyship, an indemnitor is liable for its obligations to a surety that has paid a bond claim, unless the surety committed fraud or acted in bad faith. However, there was no prior Virginia Supreme Court precedent addressing bad faith in the context of a construction surety settling a bond claim. The Eastern District therefore referred to the standard of bad faith in an insurance context in this jurisdiction and other jurisdictions. The Eastern District ultimately determined that F&D’s settlement payment was not bad faith. The record showed that F&D not only investigated the City’s claims, but that it properly defended against them as well. F&D and its consultant asserted the Defendants’ factual defenses, and the City’s claims decreased significantly as a result of those efforts. At all times, F&D communicated with the Defendants to encourage them to resolve the claims with the City, but the Defendants declined to do so. Therefore, the Eastern District ruled F&D’s actions did not constitute bad faith. The Eastern District further also concluded that F&D’s payment despite Defendant’s potential statute of limitations argument did not constitute bad faith. The Defendants’ statute of limitations defense was not clear by the facts of the case, and given that uncertainty, settling despite possibly having a defense did not rise to the level of bad faith.

5

C. SOURCE OF DUTY RULE Sourceone, Inc. (DE) v. ESI Inc. of Tennessee., Case No. 3:19-cv-907 (E.D. Va. July 27, 2020)

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) hired Veolia Energy Operating Services LLC (“Veolia”) to perform certain infrastructure upgrades to DuPont’s industrial manufacturing facility in Richmond, Virginia. As part of its work on the DuPont facility, Veolia contracted with SourceOne, Inc. (DE) (“SourceOne”) to implement upgrades to the cogeneration plant’s burners. SourceOne then entered into a contract with ESI, Inc. of Tennessee (“ESI”) for ESI to perform the engineering services necessary to complete the burner upgrades. ESI was required to visit the DuPont facility, evaluate the existing system, develop specifications for a new burner system, collect and evaluate bids from burner manufacturers, and recommend a burner manufacturer to SourceOne. ESI performed these tasks, and SourceOne selected the burner manufacturer ESI recommended. Unfortunately, the burners supplied were incapable of achieving the performance level required and, when operated, caused damage to other equipment in the facility. SourceOne and Veolia brought suit against ESI in the Eastern District, alleging breach of contract, breach of warranty, contractual indemnity, and negligent misrepresentation. ESI moved to dismiss the breach of warranty, contractual indemnity, and negligent misrepresentation counts. The Eastern District denied ESI’s motion with respect to the breach of warranty and contractual indemnity counts, noting that the plaintiffs were entitled to plead multiple theories (and not merely breach of contract as argued by ESI) and the contractual indemnity language might apply to the facts plaintiffs alleged (as the contractual indemnity provision did not clearly exclude first-party claims).

The Eastern District, applying the source of duty rule, dismissed Veolia’s negligent misrepresentation count against ESI. ESI’s duties to Veolia arose out of the ESI contract, Veolia sought only economic losses from ESI, and ESI owed Veolia no separate common law duty related to the project. Therefore the duties involved in Veolia’s claim sounded in contract, and, under Virginia law, Veolia was not permitted to bring a tort claim for ESI’s alleged violation of those duties. D. TEAMING AGREEMENTS Futrend Tech, Inc. v. MicroHealth, LLC, Case No. CL-2018-14995 (Fairfax County August 21, 2020).

Futrend Tech, Inc. (“Futrend”) was a government contracting entity that had been awarded a Department of Health and Human Services contract as an 8(a) small business. When the Department of Health and Human Services contract came up for bid again, Futrend had graduated from the 8(a) program. Because it could not serve as the prime contractor, Futrend found a teaming partner in MicroHealth, LLC (“MicroHealth”) for the new contract. Futrend and MicroHealth entered into a teaming agreement to bid on the new contract. After an inquiry from the government concerning the respective roles of Futrend and MicroHealth, Futrend and MicroHealth entered into a second teaming agreement. Subsequently MicroHealth was awarded the contract.

After award, but prior to the start of the contract, MicroHealth’s anticipated project manager was

no longer available. In order to solve this problem Futrend suggested that its project manager from the

6

prior contract period, could “rebadge” as a MicroHealth employee. The government objected that too many Futrend employees were involved. In response, MicroHealth and Futrend then made arrangements to organize staffing to be consistent with the obligation that MicroHealth to lead the project. MicroHealth then provided a draft subcontract to Futrend as contemplated under the parties’ second teaming agreement that offered Futrend nine of nineteen positions, which was 47% of the workshare. MicroHealth also offered 46% of the revenue to Futrend. Futrend rejected this and another subcontract proposal. As a result, MicroHealth severed its relationship with Futrend.

Futrend filed suit claiming a breach of the second teaming agreement, claiming that Futrend was

entitled to 49% of the workshares and that the contract was only terminable for cause. The Court refused to enforce the second teaming agreement finding that it merely set out agreements to negotiate future subcontracts. The court specifically focused on provisions that required the parties to negotiate in good faith following award concerning the amount of workshares, the specific labor categories, and the full terms and conditions of a subcontract, including price and specification. The Court did hold that a provision barring the soliciting or hiring of employees of the other company was definite enough to be enforceable. Ultimately, Futrend did not recover on this breach because it could not prove its lost profits. The indefiniteness of the parties teaming agreement also served as the basis for the Court’s ruling that Futrend did not have a claim for tortious interference with a business expectancy. Because the teaming agreement was so indefinite there was no business expectancy.

………………………………………………………………………………………… The Editors wish to thank all of the contributors to this issue of the Section Newsletter. As always, the Editors welcome the submission of articles, opinions, and other items of interest. Such materials may be sent to either of the newsletter editors:

Daniel D. Rounds Jesse B. Gordon SMITH PACHTER MCWHORTER PLC PENDER & COWARD PC 8000 Towers Crescent Drive, Suite 900 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 400 Tysons Corner, VA 22182 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 [email protected] [email protected]

7

Is OSHA or VOSH Stepping up their PPE Game? PPE Regulations & Guidelines in the COVID-19 Era

Alison Mullins, Partner; J. Travers Clark and Yi Shen, Associates

Shannon Mullins & Wright LLP In 2020, COVID-19 turned the world upside down. Suddenly, it is not just construction industry workers on job sites who wear personal protective equipment (“PPE”) - almost every person is wearing some level of PPE during their everyday life. In this article we summarize the current Federal and Virginia general regulations and/or guidelines that address an employer’s duty to provide PPE to their workers considering the current global pandemic. It is important to highlight the scope and applicability of these duties as it relates to providing PPE to construction site workers in light of the dangers of COVID-19. Federal Regulations Under the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the “Act”), Employers must (1) furnish employment and a place of employment free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to its employees;1 and (2) comply with occupational safety and health standards.2 The first requirement imposes the general duty of providing PPE, while the second subjects employers to Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (“OSHA”) regulatory standards. The relevant standards enforced by OSHA are found under 29 CFR 1910 General Industry, and 29 CFR 1926 Construction specific regulations. OSHA’s general requirements for PPE require employers to provide, maintain, and enforce the use of PPE3 for its employees. If employees provide their own PPE, employers are still responsible for assuring the PPE’s adequacy, including proper maintenance and sanitation of this equipment.4 Under the general industry regulations, the Act sets standards for providing PPE generally, with additional specific regulations for specific body parts, such as eye/face, respiratory, head, legs/feet, arms/hands, and ears.5 Some common examples of PPE that fall into this category include, but are certainly not limited to, rubber boots with steel toes, shoe covers – toe caps, goggles, face shields, hard hats, hearing protection, gloves, respirators, and reflective work vests.6

The Construction specific regulations enhance the general industry regulations, in part, by requiring increased standards for PPE to meet American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards.7 Generally, ANSI requires substantially the same PPE as the general industry regulations, but that is more durable (goggles), impact and compression requirements (shoes), and protective from lateral impact versus top-only impact (hard hats), comfortable in order to be capable of being worn for extended hours under the designed conditions, and fit snuggly.8

More specifically, employers are required to provide employees respirators when such equipment is necessary to protect the employee’s health.9 It is unclear whether this extends to airborne pathogens as the traditional interpretation of this regulation is limited to identifiable chemicals and particulates such as

8

formaldehyde, lead, and coal dust.10 Recent complaints to OSHA regarding access to and use of PPE have sought clarity on expanding and elevating the “standard” regulations in response to the pandemic.

Reports to OSHA’s administrative judicial process have escalated to nearly 10,000 COVID-19 related complaints this year alone.11 In one case out of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, plaintiff sued under Section 13 of the Act, which permits federal courts to “restrain any conditions or practices in any place of employment which are such that a danger exists which could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical harm immediately or before the imminence of such danger can be eliminated through the enforcement procedures otherwise provided by this act.”12 In making its ruling, the Court recognized that OSHA has not issued workplace standards specific to COVID-19, and instead has published optional guidance.13 The Court found that OSHA had “reasonably determined” that emergency standards are “not necessary at this time to combat this unprecedented pandemic because it has existing regulatory tools at its disposal to ensure that employers are maintaining hazard-free work environments.”14

In another case before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, petitioners

challenged OSHA’s decision to not issue an official “emergency temporary standard” (“ETS”) to protect workers from occupational exposure to infectious diseases (not specific to COVID-19).15 There, the Court also followed OSHA’s reasoning that existing regulations requiring employers to provide PPE are sufficient, and that OSHA’s determination that an ETS is not necessary to be adequately reasonable.16

As the authorities discussed above show, at this time the Federal Government has not adopted any

specific regulations requiring additional or specialized PPE in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Federal Construction Industry Guidelines

OSHA has issued new construction industry guidelines to protect workers from COVID-19.17

Generally, the new guidelines introduce additional measures to cover hazard assessment, engineering and administrative controls, safe work practices, and PPE. These guidelines seem to be a compromise in the above dispute regarding ETS in response to COVID-19. OSHA authorizes these measures where workers face grave dangers. To timely address these dangers, OSHA issues guidelines without public comment and they take effect immediately. As a result, OSHA guidelines are advisory in nature and do not carry the same force regulations do, are not a standard or regulation, and create no new legal obligations.18

Among the guidelines are updated policies to correspond with existing Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention (“CDC”), OSHA, and state guidelines; and guidelines for training workers on social distancing, hygiene, PPE use, and wearing facemasks. The policy clarifies that facemasks do not qualify as PPE; however, recommends wearing cloth face coverings as a protective measure in addition to social distancing and especially when social distancing is not possible or feasible based on working conditions.19

While facemasks themselves are not considered PPE, the guidelines do include the following

special considerations for persons at construction sites:

Provide standard wash facilities to allow adequate opportunity for frequent hand washing;

9

Designate a site coordinator to coordinate COVID-19 protections among the various contractors, subcontractors, and individual craftspeople on site;

Train workers about COVID-19 protections in a language they understand; Make changes in work practices to allow for cleaning of shared tools between users; and Enforce social distancing so that workers remain over 6 feet apart, during both working operations,

as well as lunch and rest breaks. Virginia-Specific Regulations While there are currently no federal regulations, Virginia is at the forefront of addressing PPE regulations in response to COVID-19 at the state level. 20 Virginia’s state plan relating to occupational safety and health is codified in what is commonly referred to as the “Virginia State Plan.” It is an adoption and supplementation of OSHA’s regulatory framework, administered by the Virginia Occupational Safety and Health Program (“VOSH”), a division of the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry (“DOLI”).21 On July 24, 2020, Virginia adopted an ETS to address additional safety concerns brought on by the pandemic.22 VOSH’s ETS specifically identifies COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 as workplace hazards which require the implementation of enhanced PPE regulations. Not only was Virginia the first state to adopt such an ETS, but it is currently the only jurisdiction in the area to adopt a COVID-19-specific ETS under its state plan. Employers in Virginia are required to provide PPE to their employees and ensure the equipment’s proper use in accordance with VOSH laws, standards, and regulations applicable to PPE.23 Virginia’s new workplace safety standards are based on an employee’s risk of exposure to COVID-19 while on the job. Under these standards, risk levels are put into four categories: Very high, High, Medium and Lower.24 These new requirements are intended to supplement existing VOSH program rules and regulations. If there is a conflict between this new law and existing state law, the law that provides greater protection for employees will apply.25

The mandatory requirements for all Virginia employers under the ETS to address COVID-19 concerns, which specifically relate to PPE on construction projects include26:

Conduct a risk assessment for hazards and job tasks that may potentially expose employees to COVID-19 and to classify each job task according to the standard’s Very high, High, Medium and Lower exposure risk.

Enable employees to have easy, frequent access, and permission to use soap and water, and hand sanitizer where feasible, for the duration of work.

When working conditions do not allow employees to observe physical distancing requirements, employers shall provide PPE and ensure compliance with respiratory protection and PPE standards “applicable to its industry” and “in accordance with VOSH laws, standards, and regulations.”

Clean and disinfect areas where individuals known or suspected to have COVID-19 accessed or worked and frequently touched surfaces and doors at the end of each shift, ensuring use of only EPA-approved disinfecting chemicals and products for use against COVID-19.

10

These legal requirements are only temporary, and will last until they are repealed by the Virginia

Safety and Health Codes Board or whichever of the following occurs first: (a) six months have passed from the effective date of the emergency temporary standard; (b) the Virginia State of Emergency ends; or (c) a permanent workplace safety law goes into effect.27 Conclusion Everyone is stepping up their game with precautions to limit the spread of COVID-19. While PPE plays a role in those precautions, the construction industry regulations relating to PPE have not significantly changed. However, as COVID-19 is predicted to spike in occurrences again this winter, it is advised to check OSHA and VOSH with frequency for updated guidelines and possible future regulations.

*This article is not intended to provide specific legal advice, but instead as general commentary regarding legal matters. 1 OSH Act Section 5(a)(1); 29 U.S.C. 654. 2 OSH Act Section 5(a)(2); 29 U.S.C. 654. 3 29 CFR 1910.132 (a) identifies the following as applicable personal protective equipment: PPE for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers. 4 29 CFR 1910.132 (b)-(d). 5 Out of the specific body-part regulations, only 26 CFR 1910.134, the specific regulation relating to respiratory protection, applies to PPE against COVID-19. The regulation governing eye and face protection relate to protection against flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation is 29 CFR 1910.133. 6 29 CFR 1910 (h)(1-7). 7 29 CFR 1926.6. 8 29 CFR 1926.95, et seq. 9 29 CFR 1910.134(a)(2). 10 See generally International Union, United Auto., etc. v. Pendergrass, 878 F.2d 389 (D.C. Cir. 1989). 11 See Palmer v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203683 at *16 (November 1, 2020). 12 29 U.S.C. 662. 13 Palmer at *15. 14 Id. at *15-16 (citing In re Am. Fed’n of Labor & Cong. Of Indus. Orgs., No. 20-1158, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 18562, 2020 WL 312534 at *1 (D.C. Cir. June 11, 2020) (internal citations omitted). 15 In re Am. Fed’n of Labor & Cong. Of Indus. Orgs., No. 20-1158, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 18562, 2020 WL 3125324 at *1 (D.C. Cir. June 11, 2020). 16 Id. 17 https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA4000.pdf. 18 https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/construction.html. 19 Id. 20 16 VAC 25-220 et al.; https://www.doli.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/RIS-filed-RTD-Final-ETS-7.24.2020.pdf. 21 OSHA memorializes the approval and endorsement of the Virginia Plan in 29 CFR 1952.21. 22 https://www.doli.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/RIS-filed-RTD-Final-ETS-7.24.2020.pdf. 23 16 VAC 25-220-40(L). 24 https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3990.pdf. 25 16 VAC 25-220-10(D). 26 16 VAC 25-220-10, et seq. 27 16 VAC 25-220-20.

Construction Law and Public Contracts Section 2020–2021 Board of Governors

Scott Windle Kowalski, Esq., Chair Petty Livingston Dawson & Richards PC P.O. Box 1080 Lynchburg, VA 24505 434-846-2768 [email protected]

Randall Hall Wintory, Esq., Vice Chair Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street, 12th Floor Richmond, Virginia 23219 804-225-3306 [email protected]

Alison Rachelle Mullins, Esq., Secretary Shannon, Mullins & Wright LLP 124 S Royal Street Alexandria, VA 22134 571-620-1930 [email protected]

Jonathan James Straw, Esq., Treasurer Kraftson Caudle, PLC 1600 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 250 McLean, VA 22102 703-873-5513 [email protected]

Hanna Lee Blake, Esq., Imm. Past Chair Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP 1765 Greensboro Station Place, Ste. 1000 McLean, VA 22102 703-749-1000 [email protected]

Daniel David Rounds, Esq. Co-Newsletter Editor Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC 8000 Towers Crescent Dr., Ste. 900 Tysons Corner, VA 22182 703-847-6305 [email protected]

Jesse Brian Gordon, Esq. Co-Newsletter Editor Pender & Coward, PC 222 Central Park Ave., Ste. 400 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 757-490-6266 [email protected]

Quinton Bowman Callahan, Esq. Clark & Bradshaw, P.C. 92 N Liberty St. Harrisonburg, VA 22802 540-433-2601 [email protected]

Tara Louise Chadbourn, Esq. ReavesColey PLLC 505 Independence Pkwy Ste 103 Chesapeake, VA 23320 757-410-8066 [email protected]

Joseph Scott Guarino, Esq. Varela Lee Metz & Guarino LLP 1600 Tysons Blvd., Ste. 900 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 703-454-0174 [email protected]

Joshua Charles Johnson, Esq. Johnson, Rosen & O'Keeffe, LLC 131 Kirk Avenue SW Roanoke, VA 24011 540-491-0636 [email protected]

Jesse Spencer Keene, Esq. Cozen O’Connor P.C. 1200 19th Street, NW, 3rd Floor Washington, DC 20036 202-747-0795 [email protected]

Chandra Dore Lantz, Esq. Office of the Attorney General 202 North 9th Street Richmond, VA 23219 804-786-1925 [email protected]

Lauren P. McLaughlin, Esq. Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP 1950 Old Gallows Road, Suite 750 Tysons, VA 22182 703-506-1990 [email protected]

Andrew Payne Pearson, Esq. Petty, Livingston, Dawson & Richards P.O Box 1080 Lynchburg, VA 24505 434-846-2768 [email protected]

Sarah Kathryn Stahling, Esq. Office of the Attorney General 202 North 9th Street Richmond, VA 23219 804-387-3039 [email protected]

Spencer McLaughlin Wiegard, Esq. Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore LLP 10 Franklin Road, SE, Suite 900 P.O. Box 40013 Roanoke, VA 24022-0013 540-983-9454 [email protected]

Jonathon Robert Wright, Esq. Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP 1765 Greensboro Station Place, Ste. 1000 McLean, VA 22102 703-749-1062 [email protected]

Hon. David Wayne Lanett, Ex-Officio Judicial Norfolk Circuit Court 150 St. Paul Boulevard, Suite 800 Norfolk, VA 23510-2772

Hon. James Frederick Watson Ex-Offico Judicial Nelson County Circuit Court P.O. Box 10 Lovingston, VA 22949

Richard Peter DiMeglio, Esq., Va CLE Liaison 2674 English Oaks Circle Charlottesville, VA 22911 434-973-9520 [email protected]

Ms. Paulette J. Davidson, Liaison Virginia State Bar 1111 E Main St., Ste. 700 Richmond, VA 23219-0026 804-775-0521 [email protected]

FIRST CLASS U.S. POSTAGE

PAID PERMIT NO. 709

RICHMOND

Virginia State Bar

1111 East Main Street Suite 700 Richmond, VA 23219-0026

Case 3:17-cv-00355-JAG Document 311 Filed 06/22/20 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 9017

Case 2:19-cv-00567-DEM Document 30 Filed 09/18/20 Page 1 of 17 PageID# 388

Construction Section Newsletter Issue #77 - FINALConstruction Section Newsletter Issue #77 - DRAFT- DDR 12-1-2020newsletter back page with VSB address seal and first class inditiaArticle -piece 2

Cases_Redacted

fall 2020 newsletter issue no. 77 chair’s column · 2020. 12. 2. · fall 2020 newsletter issue...

Documents